Do what is right, and whenever given a chance, destroy the weak. At least, that's my motto

Destroy the Weak: Genocide of -120 IQ?

That's some kind of instrumental, cold logic which is easy to affirm behind the keyboard, not behind the trigger. Unless by "destroying" you mean preventing reproduction.

I often ask myself: who would I be if I killed millions for love? A psychotic or a sage?

Have you read the Bhagavad Gita?

I agree, but being there is hurtful, even endangering for sanity:

"There is no calamity greater than lightly engaging in war. To dothat is near losing (the gentleness) which is so precious. Thus it isthat when opposing weapons are (actually) crossed, he who deplores(the situation) conquers." Tao Te King 69

Only a hero as Arjuna, would cry.

Being behind the trigger pointing to someone whose harm is just to exist, to consume resources, very often at a pauper level? I can't simply go marching full of pride and shouting "destroy the weak", thinking in that.

Why not forcefully prohibit kids and forced sterelization? That can be done too. I would never accept mass murder.

Yeah, I don't really like the idea of just killing off a shitload of people. Its best to limit population through more humane methods, like sterilization (who was that politician that offered to pay bums 1000$ for a vasectomy? that was a good idea). I also think family planning and putting babies to sleep who have debilitating birth defects would be more acceptable.

I know what I'd do. In real life as well as on the keyboard. And if you've ever committed an act of necessary violence, you know it's actually not difficult. The main problem would be the boredom of the repetitive act of killing, so I'd use one of those industrial cattle-herders and an animal rendering machine to do the killing.

That's the problem. What kind of culture would be one in which the biggest problem of killing is boredom? Really.

Factibility: -120 IQ are not cattle, I'm not meaning that they are worthy because that they are humans and not cattle, what I'm saying is that they would resist. Not even possible if all +120 seized the military forces against them. What is most important, how many +120 would agree in mass murder?

The truth is that human relationships can't be reducted to a class conflict/dichotomy, wether economical or intellectual. We have strong cultural and emotional links among us, "love" and that garbage that matters. I know that I couldn't kill someone just for eating food and drinking water in our current situation. What kind of killers we would be if so? Reaching the stars would not equal the amount of pain we would inflict, unto others, and unto ourselves.

If you think I'm going too sentimental, yes, I do. I'm aware that from a cold and instrumental logic, B is the choice. But I avoid such reductionism, one of the light of reason over the sentiments, certainly.

I am not for A, because I don't want eventually to kill anyone to have food or water for myself. I would go for option C. C for China.

-I believe in smaller societies, college education would not be as neccessary, or if so, not as grueling, as you are making it to be, because your goal would not be to become a successful business man or some tech guy for a global corporation, but instead you would be focused on the survival of your community and family, doing what you can to keep them fed and safe.

Fewer societies with more smart people -- sounds like Scandinavia. At least until recently!

Why are you against a proven method that constitutes a viable partial solution to this problem? Obviously, the next step would be to take the exceptional and breed them like mad.

Factibility, mostly affected by the emotional and cultural capabilities of our species in regards killing peers, and I'm afraid, not a monopoly of modernism. Curiously, evolution brought us the possibility to have empathy.

Neanderthals were the 120- and the Homo Sapiens were the 120+ of their time. But there's a clear distinction between them, a sense of strangeness that contributed to Neanderthals extinction. An intra-species heterogeneity.

Do you think that we can find such generalized strangeness, heterogeneity between 120s+ and 120s-, in order to make a WAR?

I think that 120- massacre is a singularity, not a proven method. Evolution is not a method, but we can make methods in regards natural selection. Eugenics is a method which would work without genocide, slower but much more factible.

Other than seeing it as impolitic, and feeling it is morally retrograde, what other objections do you have?

I don't have other objections, anything else outside feasibility around morality, would be an objection against eugenics.

Institutionalized death has been reserved for the worst criminals. Much of our culture is build upon that hierarchy of violations, creating a sense of strangeness against those who violate rules, being death penalty the highest sanction in this regard. Considering 120s- as death deservers would equal them in the category of criminals in terms of strangeness, I ask you again, do you believe this possible, feasible?

The holocaust comes to mind, how feasible it was? To the minds of indoctrinated soldiers, once the strangeness against jews as criminals was build, it was a matter of passionless instrumentality. But what about the rest of the world, or even the Germans themselves?

I don't want to get tricky here, what I like about the criteria of 120 is that is not racist. But, how could you construct a strangeness between 120s+ and 120s-? There's a morality between, that I'm afraid, is not merely a social construction, even if so, is an extremely solid one. That if you want most of 120s+ in your side, in case that you don't want to lose this war against the vast number of -120s.

Does all killing means equity with strangeness? Previously I made the mention to "well killed" without thinking in its greek equivalent: euthanasia. However, I think that it is not necessary to explain the difference between what we are discussing here and assisted suicide.

What about a one child policy? It works without so much complications. We can add extra-license for good fathers.

When people speak blithely about systematically killing people under some IQ threshold, it reminds me of liberals who appear to assume that their redistributionary schemes are either costless or that their costs don't cancel out or outweigh their purported benefits. It also seems to assume that empowering a body of individuals to carry out such measures is either costless or a net gain for those who stand to "benefit". Get real.

When people speak blithely about systematically killing people under some IQ threshold, it reminds me of liberals who appear to assume that their redistributionary schemes are either costless or that their costs don't cancel out or outweigh their purported benefits. It also seems to assume that empowering a body of individuals to carry out such measures is either costless or a net gain for those who stand to "benefit". Get real.

The likelihood of an IQ based genocide actually occurring is basically 0. A more realistic approach would be a combination of supporting genetic screening, creating economic incentives for idiots not to breed, and protecting the sanctity of abortion ... and eating people.

When people speak blithely about systematically killing people under some IQ threshold

You know, I just can't think of any time in history when the established order's taboos suddenly became clear for violation over night.

Not a one! Not at all! Just can't imagine it.

I take it you're being sarcastic here. If you are, then it seems to me that you're merely reasserting the point in contention, which doesn't advance the dialectic one iota. I submit that those who would like to implement what prima facie would amount to hell on Earth have the burden of showing that their scheme can at least survive a cost-benefit analysis.

I submit that those who would like to implement what prima facie would amount to hell on Earth have the burden of showing that their scheme can at least survive a cost-benefit analysis.

You do that.

Your point was that you didn't think it was realistic.

My point is that what the public accepts shifts radically between the ages.

There's no need for further discussion on this point.

And? I don't know about any precise statistics, but I'd guess that most people fall under 120 in terms of IQ. Good luck getting that public to radically shift toward support for its own slaughter. At any rate, your point has little or nothing to do with the concern I raised, which is that it's far from obvious that this would be an unambiguous improvement. And you frame the contrast between my point and yours as though I were saying that it's not possible for such a thing (systematic slaughter of large numbers of people, that is) to happen to which you reply that what people accept can radically shift (hence opening up the possibility that it is possible and therefore a realistic goal). That is the only way I know how to interpret what you're trying to get at. But it's irrelevant, because it doesn't even address my point. If you're not going to make a good point, at least make a relevant one.